[“Dosumént No. ORAUT-TKBS-0085 Revision No. 00_T Effedlive Date: 06/2212007 | -Page 14 of 64 a

21.4 Physical Chemistry Annex 2

The Physical Chemistry Annex 2 Building was a brick fireproof structure built east of Wallace Road in
early 1944 to house the recovery of uranium from scrap uranium metal turnings collected from other
Manhattan Project sites (Spedding 1947). Operations in this building through December 1945
produced more than 300 tons of recovered uranium metal (Spedding 1247). Operations ended:in
4953 when the building was converted to a plunibing Shop; it was razed in 1972 (Ames 1985), The
area where, the building stood was covered with concrete and served as a parking lot and loading
zone. The area was surveyed in May 1979 (Voss 1979). Part of the General Services Building now

covers part of the former building site (see Figure 2-1).
215 Metalluray Bullding (Wilhelm Hall)

The Metallurgy Building, constructed by the AEC, was completed in October 1949 (Ames 1951). The
building houses research directed toward the development of special metals and alloys used in
nuclear energy projects (Ames 1962). Zircaloy was initially developed at Ames Laboratory as part of
a basic study af the zirconium-tin alloy phase diagram (Ames 1962). The subject of reactor coolants
was studied, as were the heat-transfer properties of various metals and alloys (Ames 1951).
Equipment available for research, development, and production in metallurgy included many types of
furnaces; high-vacuum systems; pyrometric devices; fabricating and testing machines; metallographs;
X-ray diffractometers; and ultrasonic, spectrographic, dilatometric, and other instruments for
examination and study of metals and alloys (Ames 1962). A glovebox line in the Metallurgy Building

was used fo study the behavior of plutonium in molten metal systems (Ames 1962).

Thorium production and research activities were moved from Physical Chemistry Annex 1 to the
Metallurgy Building in 1949 and work on thorium continued until 1953 (Hokel et al. 1998). Poor
contamination control practices and poor ventilation contributed to contamination of the building
(Hokel et al. 1998). However, contamination levels have been reduced by mitigation,
decontamination, remodeling, and renovation projects (Hokel et al. 1998), Contamination still exists in
many interspatial areas of the building and in some relatively inaccessible areas (Hoke ef al. 1998).

21.6 Research Building (Spedding Hall)

The Research Building was constructed by the AEC and occupied in early 1951 (Ames 1951). Many
metals, including the rare earths, were investigated for mechanical, chemical, electrical, and other
properties, and were studied by experimental techniques that probed the inner structures and forces
of the materials (Ames 1962). Research facilities in the building included a 150-kV accelerator that
produced 14-MeV neutrons; a glovebox line for radiochemistry experiments; a hot canyon and hot cell
with steel shielding, lead glass windows, and manipulators for work with highty radioactive materials;
and an electron microprobe analyzer (Ames 1967). The hot canyon was two stories high with the
tower level in the basement adjacent to the hot cell. Research activities included electron beam
welding; the study of electronic structure of metals; and the separation, preparation, and
measurement of properties of the rare earth metals (Ames 1967). The initial research on liquid metat
‘coolants was done at Ames Laboratory in an engineering sodium test loop utilized in corrosion, fluid-
flow, and heat transfer studies with liquid sodium (Ames 1967). -

24.7 Office and Laboratory Building

The Office and Laboratory Building connects the Chemistry and Physics Buildings and provides
administrative offices of the Ames Laboratory, the special research laboratories used jointly by
chemists and physicists, and a large physical sciences reading room (Ames 1951).



Summaxy Minutes dune 14-16, 2006
+ NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

AMES LABORATORY. PETITIONERS RESPONSE

‘Dr. Laurence Fuortes represented the petitioners to address errors they
contend: have been made in the past.. He alleged lack of attention to
worker health and safety from the very top levels of administration.
The petitioners have three main issues. They concern the semantics of
discrete event equivalent to a criticality and whether the intention of

the legislation is being realized; NIOSH'’s recommendation of 250 days;
and the date at which the petition’s class is defined.

His statement in its entirety may be found on the NIOSH/OCAS web site
at www.cde.gov/niosb/ocaa.

ake

AMES LABORATORY SEC PETITION
WORKING GROUP REPORT
and SC&A REVIEW

Dr. James Melius,

Working Group Chair

Dr. Hans Behling,

Sanford Cohen & Associates

pr. Melius reported that at the conference call in April the work group
had identified issues and deteymined it would be helpful to have SC&A
perform a limited review of the information, the NIOSH evaluation
report and the petition. The issues concerned residual contamination
and episodic exposure. SC&A’s recent report has not yet been reviewed

by NIOSH.

wae

Dr. Behling highlighted only the outstanding issues in SC&A’s report,
along with those which might require Board resolution. Essential
components of the review procesa included reviews of the petition and
of available relevant) documents; an assessment of NIOSH's petition
evaluation report, and issues potentially requiring Board resolution.

SCGA ‘concluded, as did NIOSH, that dose reconstructions would be
difficult in light of information deficiencies and gaps. However, the
question arose as to what constituted the Ames project, whether
production or potential exposures went beyond the production period to
he included as part of the SEC petition. This open question. needed

careful consideration, as did the possibility that the 1954 end date

10



Dud eh posure B BX Jubstan csv Aud
that rhiptarse yy Chimicelp Aud AL

tnd. Hie aatebele frag Yavin beow peer
Joviwleds, hud. deed Net taker Lt Bccound
the Cornbined. efpects g Aoi-bivel padiston
Aud. Bxle Cheenti tf

m0) Lu: Z
Ste cea emi, ob my
Eg i al ny

2 Aiud brie
oD ud. Lehi Steg an" & , “

jess tae
we Lihat Ubas Cre ateieg “a L pag ard DB

eq Chia time, thay! sad ppd

poston he "hot Cimon abo het Cette
Were instilled. AE Mhid tome, bfeih Waa
Yd yer Lark Lith fu AAdiwaclibe
NatiruKés, Me besa weke ot Aectumenled,
Whik Was typicel 640k thin,
M57- 4ebo Aineg bab oles ypased.

Aadsshoge ical Aud. hay ardale tas thereat
Pa Wwist Pte Nerth 2p "the f Gh ) m-

Eig thri Waste, } De ee Wace ,
he OLide, YltAien, Labeitos, Adios
Neeru thalhcum batts Cyanide and

a

Zin len lwo, 9 lela Wor ur Yeara
thode Hales, do Wee know th Ly tre teal
thede Wactereis Cire Arid Afwe

jhy d Lingo yen.



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
tliness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 5 of 7

F Basis for Proposing that Records and Information are Inadequate for Individual Dose —
Complete Section F.

Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing
the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry.

Ft w (We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate to this petition, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area
monitoring.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

The Srmployses odlest frok  radiokim moarttorcra wes act
©

ots nae i LS Sra -
As +6 site wos x ortayivotked us te initiaQQ.y
1

braniam aud sulo roduckron , ver tall

and ower trek ackve naredcation has cosinued fon

SO years since grocduckion ceased ik is oogsesiote to Cons (Dar

expausren IR Ke Prign SEC's Rv this gite currently towted

Ae He prdackion eva for allworters ond limited to peu vaklan

workers iw subsequact Neots to include all employces ARrough atleast ite]
F.2  @ I Wehave attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that

radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or

destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process
from the site where the employees worked.

(Attach documents ahd/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.

Part F is continued on the following page.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



June 1, 2009-

ni: Ames Laboratory

Creating Materials & Energy Solutions

r Vis, DEPARTM ENT OF ENERRY
Special Director’s Message

Elevated Berylllum Levels Identified In Inactive Spedding Hal] Fume Hood
Vent Stacks 7 :

. Recently, radiofogical and beryllium survey sampling was conducted on Inactive fume
Dhis fhihe? Q hood vent stacks in Spedding Hail, in preparation for energy saving projects that ©
b . : include tintng of the-building’s vent stacks. Some‘radiclagical. contamination: was’
4 pend ‘anticipated; due to historical activities related to uranium and thorium productions
7 processes, and in some of the stacks elevated levels of radiolagical contamination
$b ae / . were recorded, mostly as.fixed contamination. Initial results of beryllium wipe.tests
‘ also Indicated leveis of beryillum above the detection limits (0.5 ug/200 sq.cm.} in *
several of the inactive stacks, and this contamination was unexpected due to the.
historical understanding that berylllum work had been very limited in Spedding and
not of the type that would resuit in residual contamination, .

The results indicate the presence of berytllum contamination In unused fume hood
stacks which are not accessible to research and administrative workers. The

. contamination in the unused stacks does not Indicate there is contamination In the
rooms where the stacks are located. Results froma 2008 beryllium survey. of spaces In
TASF, MD, HWH, and Spedding (mostly hallways and offices) indicated no detectable
tevels of beryliium, Additional room surveys are planned for the laboratories and
offices where the.contaminated stacks are located, Room occupants are ‘being

contacted regarding the room survey activities. Testing is aiso planned for other fume
vent stacks in Spedding. . .

http:/Awww.ameslab, gow/Special Message 06-01 -09.btml 11/23709:.


duly bape Atusl is Zero,

adn my uosh dese titineter f Aeceived,
At States’ A Was poli litls CXpeded Ba
pA dtitiw bud’ detated (it Lie part, but
Ltabd that |Varimune Lntirnel Area ©
Xtina ey posure CAaunet be Compberaby
Aetrnstrucled, (955 tye (1970. Dees
Un dutctiy thn WOOO bf bet Chars 507 Chey
qave Me Cink be. Accusale ,

YG pes that Aetontamninastiow

“yor ad the Aine Lab pretitire ideh

on pace lintih 1996, Kuece My becibdis
as hot pre daiten tamntéled, After
processes Na divactiie Ihatiterts, QUtL td
thor. dd Uraniuns f pre. Ine 7
Cmpio mer Luts polbrite Lvpo bed —
bs Leprperint ee pe Dy “hdichnw
JS haved Wrorn heen Henieds Cuerage
Undine the. bain yr bee 2. poded, TO
S24 dentine, ef vee . Tucetear, lukapons
(etait Pecdeeae, | a al dose, Aocondtactin
Adéed. on title “ata, hutl Lh dfpyrd ,
tethnical yn plecics, (A

Shine tot beew, dhowre Usar Aud.
Con vintc evt din ce, that} Cater
lta Not Chnsed by exphoure Whe lprk.
ig at Leyes Lad. ;

bn Gune 4 200g the fints ib Mirectar



february 1, 2Ol6
A Bm Aegina eva LZ be trebaded to tba
Gina Keb SEL J jhe Kiseserh Briedere
Now Speddiug Hit ) Xtindetg the Ait
tb /4e/, Li Con nbodd that la Wie OX posed

b AAddiotthia (niteriabe AA fest eg
Ipy employment 4 Lire:

Caused. Phin 40 fi knw 0.0612 OCARCLN ONAL
kw the net My Poort
Adferentiatbd, héistiotyteid Cin tow tnt the

. fer lhiih $ fave Yeo
én he Hisliny or Endlne Arak yechas, Ln
Ondulbug QA braau mi a I tin ofboth mg

On lologtht, that Sfates ‘he
belined ud b Pree Lebel thaw Vot'm
Ex padi.  AAdistne £ tie Ware  pbacd.
ple Lb. Aote. kr the awelopment

bath Mu CAUwLS, Dn hel dbo, ihy

lon. Aerie
my best Mere months 0 employmentih
insta peed. Papillary thy, id, Chit. ate
Which: ts Qbso AMotiald,
Lith Aa datirw Okposure, Abse, thy boss

Waa ; Guo Sead, Leh,
bone. caucer, Lhesae Cancers ocleneloped,
div the . the 3 4f Ua 41

Aufinitily bppdar te be thore. then. bo-

Stated, that ;
Mubtiple Studiow have Youre blinks be-
tivionw brain, breeat akc bone Cancers



INSTITUTE =-FOR

ATOMIC.

lowA STATE
AMES, 1OWA

News
RESEARCH

UNIVER SITY

Volume 1, No, 13

Maxch-18; 1960

Editor, B. J, Gleason

THE LABORATORY BUSINESS OFFICE

The third in a series of articles de~
signed to batter acquaint the various
Ames Laboratory groups.

‘The Laboratory Business Office was recently
established to xeplace the Administrative and Peysonnel
Department of the Laboratory. Responsibilitias of this
office include:, general administration; budget prapa~
vation; pexgonnel services} property management;
trannpoztation; and contract administration. The
Laboratory metalworking, woodworking, glassblowing
and electronica shops algo are administered through

this office.

Mr. Alex Edwards, Laboratory Business Manager,
is in charge of the Laboratory Business Office. He |
joined the staff,in 1948 and worked as an Administrative
‘Aidé to the Director until biz recent appointment to
Laboratory Business Manager. .

Administrative Services ara handled through Mr.
Eugene Catus, Admin, Aast.; who haa been,with the
Laboratory since 1950, He assists in the preparation
and analysis of budgets for the Atomic Energy Com-
mission and Lowa State University, and prepares wage
and salaxy back-up information for consideration by
the Salary Review Committec,

Mr. Custisy Roberg began employment with the
Laboratory in 1948 with the Shipping, Receiving and _
Propexty Depaxtinent. He assumed his present duties
as Personmel Assistant in 1957, Personnel Services,
which include college recruitment, employment of E
bage and hourly personnal and the maintenance of 21)
personnel records for Laboratory employees, are
Curt's responaibilities.

Ardith Jensen is Secretary to the Laboratory
Business Manager and began her employment with the
Laboratary in 1951. In 1952 she was promoted to her

present position us Secretary. Her primary responsi-
bilities are to handlé correspondence and dictation for
Mr. Edwarda and to arrange appointments and meetings
fox the discuassion of Laboratory business matters.
Ardith also prepares a number of administrative reports
concerning the Laboratory and of interest ta the Atomic
Enexgy Commission. :

The responsibility for processing 'the personnel
action sheets and time sheets goes to Mra. Vicki Gous.
Vicki algo takes care of the clerical preparation and
assembly of the Laboratory budgets and the mainte~ ~
mancé of the files relating to these subjects. She is ore
of the newer members of the staff, having begun her
employment in the fall of 1959,

Dale Knutson, Asst. Accountant, began bis employ-
ment in the Accounting Office in 1956; he waa transferred
10 his present position in early 1958, Dale works very
closely with Gene Catus in processing and maintaining
a. log of the work orders, cost codes and purchase
orders. He prepares much of the statistical data and many
detaila used in budget preparation and analysis.

Academic vacation records, compilations of
information on the Synchrotron operation and the co~
ordination of the details of ovux ahop order system are
taken care of by Jobin Politie, Agst. Accountant. Jobn
was originally employed as a Patrolman in 1950 before
belng transferred to the Laboratory Business Office in
rf

The "Ames Laboratory Travel Bureau" is operated
by Mrs. Rosalie Locker, Shortly after she began work
at the Laboratory in 1957 ag a stenographer, she also
assumed the responsibility of makiag travel arrange~
ments for all Laboratory sponsored trips. Rosalie also
serves az secretary to Mr. Roberg in bandling the cor~
regpondence which pertaina to Laboratory peraopnel
raatters. , .

Mrs. Silene Adams is another new member of the

staff, Ske has the responsibility of preparing and
(Continued on page 2)



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
lilness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

| OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Appendix — Petitioner 3

Survivor Information — Complete Section B if you are a Survivor or representing a Survivor.

B.1 Name of Survivor:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor:
B.3 Address of Survivor:

Street Apt # P.O, Box
City State Zip Code
B.4__ Telephone Number of Survivor: ( ) -
B.5 Email Address of Survivor:
B.6 Relationship to Employee: Q Spouse Q Son/Daughter Q) Parent
Q Grandparent Q Grandchild

-Go to Part C..

Employee Information — Complete Section C.

C.1 Name of Emniovee:

First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/legal name change/other):

Mr/Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.3. Social Security Number of Employee:
C4
C5

C.6 Email Address of Employee:

C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a Employee Number (if known):

C.7b Dates of Employment: Start tagsO End (as4
C.7¢ Employer Name: AMES LAG. @2ATNAY amex 1A

C.7d Work Site Location:

C.7e Supervisor's Name:

“Sign Part G of the original petition.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: a


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
{llness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

. . OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 7 of 7

Public Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 300 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. if you
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-0639. Do not send the completed petition form to this
address. Completed petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.
Persons are not required to respond to the information collected on this form unless it displays a currently
valid OMB number.

Privacy Act Advisement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a), you are hereby notified of the
following:

The Energy Employees Occupational Iliness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385)
(EEOICPA) authorizes the President to designate additional classes of employees to be included in the
Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). EEOICPA authorizes HHS to implement its responsibilities with the
assistance of the National Institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH), an Institute of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Information obtained by NIOSH in connection with petitions for including additional
classes of employees in the SEC will be used to evaluate the petition and report findings to the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health and HHS.

Records containing identifiable information become part of an existing NIOSH system of records under the
Privacy Act, 09-20-147 “Occupational Health Epidemiological Studies and EEOICPA Program Records.
HHS/CDC/NIOSH.” These records are treated in a confidential manner, unless otherwise compelled by law.
Disclosures that NIOSH may need to make for the processing of your petition or other purposes are listed
below.

NIOSH may need to disclose personal identifying information to: (a) the Department of Energy, other federal
agencies, other government or private entities and to private sector employers to permit these entities to
retrieve records required by NIOSH; (b) identified witnesses as designated by NIOSH so that these
individuals can provide information to assist with the evaluation of SEC petitions; (c) contractors assisting
NIOSH; (d) collaborating researchers, under certain limited circumstances to conduct further investigations;
(e) Federal, state and local agencies for law enforcement purposes; and (f) a Member of Congress or a
Congressional staff member in response to a verified inquiry.

This notice applies to all forms and informational requests that you may receive from NIOSH in connection
with the evaluation of an SEC petition.

Use of the NIOSH petition forms (A and B) is voluntary but your provision of information required by these
forms is mandatory for the consideration of a petition, as specified under 42 CFR Part 83. Petitions that fail to
provide required information may not be considered by HHS.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Contro! and Prevention
Illness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7

F.3 4 We have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines. Tha Aiscussions Brom Me Tune [4-16 Advisory be

tig - Gvestaming He, Cessetion oR He

SEC A 1AS4 cive, cacladad.

F.4 (1 IWehave attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of
employees covered by the petition.

(Attach report to the back of the petition form.)
Go to Part G.

(Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

his Petitio!

G Signature of Person(s) Submitti Complete Section G.

Al

Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of
fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who
knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitled is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
Cincinnati, OH 45226

Ne — ne
If there are additional petitioners, they must complete the Appendix Forms for additional petitioners.
The Appendix forms are located at the end of this document.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _


rr



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
lilness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition —- Form B Appendix — Petitioner 3

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary. Failure to use this form or disclose
this. number will hot result in the.denial-of any right, benefit, or privilege to which you may be entitled. °- -

Use this Appendix for Petitioner 3.

This appendix form is to be used as needed. Petitioner 3, or his or her representative, should complete the
parts applicable to him or her.

Refer to the General Instructions on completing petitioner information for Parts A, B, or C.

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

Mi An Energy Employee (current or former), Start at C

if you are: | Q A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), Start at B

QA Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), Start atA

A_ Representative Information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s} to petition on behalf of a class.

A.1 Are you a contact person for an organization? O Yes (Go to A.2) Q No (Go to A.3)

A.2 Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
A3 Name of Petition Representative:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name

A4 Address:
Street Apt # P.O. Box
City State Zip Code

A.5 — Telephone Number: ( ) :

A6 Email Address:

A.7 Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization
form for this purpose is provided.

If you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



pene Wakfade s
we tA Mya fee eat
ie he hats bittd Je

phe Ames vs New thittins , ldhicty Se
Ald J dived jem 1460, Lu dicste, thay
Libre Stile Use y -ftartral “pA deo citiue
Mateus se muna ther feaearch,
Lhe bie Lhow hae L
lntdfe, Un proticted & } hat
(re &tea mays b t giepe

. on Decidio), SL tuk dh Wath. hire
buibdix Go thur a Cunnek &
te | hadtadpy

Mise ( Watheho Maa
bhuit fgets atid of ‘ppddible ‘by ‘les

ok é Mroratinv ai
he Newer tala, that Fok lore thera) be-
CAwte te NAlhoa cle Inatirde , HP Lies,
Ale & t Ud,

SE ko Wot aie ta tg tinete ‘ha

Lvith “henoonable LEGAL
Aumited taka. Suinee tly eet Uh Jive.
ln Pranitaniag / felirds rt me hud. Stale



02-12-10 P12:45 IN

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Niness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 1 of 7

General Instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are available in a separate packet):

Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

Please read each of Parts A — G in this form and complete the parts appropriate to you. If there is more
than one petitioner, then each petitioner should complete those sections of parts A — C of the form that apply
to them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form are provided at the end of the form for this pur-
pose. A maximum of three petitioners is allowed.

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

If you have questions about the use of this form, please call the following NIOSH toll-free phone number and
request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petition:
1-877-222-8570.

QA Labor Organization, StartatD on Page3

if you An Energy Employee (current or former), StartatC on Page2
are: QA Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), StartatB on Page2
OA Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), StartatA on Page 1

rmation — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or

jon on behalf of a class.

Representative |

Survivor(s) to p

A.1__ Are you a contact person for an organization? Q Yes (Go to A.2) Q No (Goto A.3)
A.2 Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
A3 Name of Petition Representative:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name

A4 Address:
Street Apt # P.O. Box
City State Zip Code

A5 — Telephone Number: ¢ d :

A6 Email Address:

A.7 Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: __



* summary Minutes Jane 14-16, 2006

NIOgH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Rhee

pr. Ziemer offered any members of the public who wisbed to comment on
\ the Conflict. of Interest policy the opportunity to do so. Mr. Richard
Miller of the Government Accountability Project accepted, and his
statement in’ its entirety may be found on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at

www, cdc. gov/niosh/ocas-

RReRK

PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION

Public comment was solicited on the first two days of the meeting. The
following is the. only member of. the public who spoke on this date. B&Q
full transcript of his public comment is available on the NIOSH/OCAS

‘web site at www. cdc.gov/niosh/ocas.

Mr. Jeff Walburn, SPFPA, hocal 66.

With no further public comment offered, the Board officially
recessed until 8:30 a.m.

eeKee,
Thuraday, dune 15, 2006

Dr. Ziemer opened the day with reminders to register attendance, sign

red for the day’s public comment session and take copies of

up if desi:
the.agenda and other pertinent documents . Dr. Wade noted that when the

petition for Ames Laboratory comes before the Board it will be the
first in which SC&A has been . aggressively involved in looking ‘into
issues. The Board has made every effort to make all the processes,
including debate, full and open. D

, :
eee

AMES LABORATORY SEC PETITION
NIOSH EVALUATION REPORT

Dr. James Neton,

NIOSH

pr. Neton presented Nrosy's evaluation of petition SEC-00038 on behalf
of Anes Laboratory- He began with a sketch of. petition-related
activities and dates. The original proposed class included a broad
scope of, seven work categories. hat definition, complete with



Ames Laboratory Guide ~ 10202.001
Office; Environment, Safety, Health & Assurance. Revision: 1
Title; RW TE Radiation Producing Device Usex’s Smdy Guide. —_Effective Date: 04/30/08
P: a Review Date: 04/30/33

6.1 Basis of Recent Guidelines

In general, the guidelines established for radiation exposure have had as their principle objectives:
(0) the prevention of acute radiation effects (e.g, erythema, sterility), and (2) the limiting of the riske
of late, stochastic effects (e.g., cancer, genetic damage) to “acceptable” levels. Nomerous revisions of
standards and guidelines have been made over the years to reflect both changes in the understanding
of the risk associated with various levels of exposure and ‘changes in the perception of what

constitutes an " te” level of ri: :
Dr lovey Malin Alvar brreplrys Alto
> Current guidelines rafiiation exposure are based upon the conservative assumption that there is no
. safe level of exposure. In other words, even the smallest exposure has some probability of cansing a
. late effect such as cancer or genetic damage. ‘This assumption has ted to the general philosophy of
not only keeping exposures below recommended levels or regulatory limits but of also maintaining all
exposures “as low 2s is reasonably achievable" (ALARA). This is a fundamental tenet of current

Many. pf the recommendations of the ICRP and other radiation protection groups regarding radiation
exposure have: been incorporated into regulatory requirements by various countries. For Department
of Energy facilities, radiation exposure limits are found in Tite 10, Part 835 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR 835). Table 2 provides a summaty of the dose limits for occupational extemal

Because of the increased susceptibility of the human embryo and fetus to damage from ionizing

radiation, estebtished dose limits to the embryo/fetus are much lower than for adults. 10 CFR

835.206(a) requires that the dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus from the period of conception to

birth, as a result of occupational exposure of a declared pregnant worker be limited to 500 mrem.

3 Workers who find that they are pregnant are encouraged to declare their pregnancy in writing to their

supervisors; the Labaratary will then take steps to keep exposures within the stated limit. Fors for
declaring pregnancy are available from ESH&A (G40 TASF).

Far whole body exposure the non-occupatiousl exposure limit is 100 marem/yr. This is in addition to
the 360 mrem/yr received, on average, by individuals in the US. from natural background radiation
and manmade radiation sources. ‘The 100 mrem/yr limit also applies to individuals under ago 18 who
work in the vicinity of radiation sources. “Dwes 1g
=



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Iiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Appendix — Petitioner 2

Use of this form and disclosure of Social Security Number are voluntary: Failure to-use this form or disclose :
this number will not result in the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege: to which you may be entitled.

Use this ‘Appendix for Petitioner 2.

This appendix form is to be used as needed. Petitioner 2, or his or her representative, should complete the
parts applicable to him or her.

Refer to the General Instructions on completing petitioner Information for Parts A, B, or C.

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

_ - —a
Q An Energy Employee (current or former), Start at C

If you are: {QA Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), Start at B
3A Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), Start at A

Representative Information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Employee or
Survivor(s) to petition on behalf of a class.

A.1 Are you a contact person for an organization? O Yes (Go to A.2) WW No (Go to A.3)
A.2 Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
A3 Name of Petition Renresentative:

FirstName Middle Initial Last Name
A4 AdAdroce
Street Apt # P.O, Box
City State Zip Code

A.5 Telephone Numbe
A& Email Address:

A.7 1 Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization
form for this purpose is provided.

if you are representing a Survivor, go to Part B; if you are representing an Employee, go to Part C.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner



AMES LABORATORY, CHEMICAL DISPOSAL SITE
(Ames, ows) ;
RAT DESCRIPTION :

The Ames Laboratory Chemical Disposal (CDS) site is focated north of Ontario Street on Scholl Road, Ames, Iowa,
The site occupies 2 acres in the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 and in the Northeast V4 of the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 32, T84N, R24W, Story County, lown. Tho sito is owned by Iowa State University and was entered on the
Registry in July 1991. . . oan
BY ASSIFICAT)

For 2002: The site is re-dassified to “d? Site Properly Closed Requires Continued Management.

TyFI QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
ad The types of | hazardous wae at this site are radioactive materials, volatile arguaic compounds and heavy
metals cote . .
‘Amés Laboratory operated by the Iowa State University (ISU) Tnstitute for Physical Research and Technology, for
the U.S, Department of Energy (DOE). Starting ia the early 1950s the site was used a3 an uncontrolled disposal area
for the laboratory equipment and chemicals from ISU researchers. The quantities and types of materials disposed
during that period are unknown. . a

In the'late 1950s, ISU erected a fouce around the area of the chemical disposal site. From 1957 to 1966 the site was
used for the disposal of radioactive materials and hazardous chemicals. Nine unlined pits, used to bury radiological
and hazardous chemicals contained in steel pails, drums and plywood boxes, were located at the southeast carner of
the CDS, site. Substances identified as buried at the site include thorium wasté, uranium waste, beryllium oxide,
yttrium, asbestos, lithium, mercury, thallium salts, cyanide, and zirconium. - :

‘Another location within the fenced area (west of the pits) was used to burn uranium metal shavings and other debris
dicectly on the ground surface. Remediation of the burn area was conducted ia 1980 and again in 1987. Surface
contamination was also discovered in 1987 and was partially remediated. .A soil investigation conducted in 1990
revealed elevated levels of thorium and uranitim in several areas of the CDS. .

Assessment activities et the site include groundwater monitoring and soil sampling. In 1993, groundwater
contamination with radioactive isotopes was found in the om-site alluvial aquifer. Further assessment of the extent
of groundwater coritamination Was completed in 1998. The groundwater temains contaminated with radioactive
materials, volatile organic Compounds and heavy metals, The heavy metal concentration of uranium fs as high as
7,500 ug/L, while the Gross Alphe and Beta measurements of radionuclides in groundwater are as high as 2,600
pCi/L. The safe drinking water standard (MCL) for Grass Alpha is 15 pCi.

SUMMARY Of HEALTH. N NEAL IMPA‘
© The primary environmental and public health concern is exposure to radioactive waste.
The Ames Laboratory Chemical Disposal site is located within the city of Ames, Iowa. The site is situated ut the

heed of a ravine that drains to Squaw Creck approximately 1,800 feet wast of the site. The creek flows five miles to
the southeast into the South Skunk River. The Ames water wells are located approximately three miles east and

southeast of the site, aa

. SUMMARY 0} IMENT, MONITORING REMEDIATION

“The us. Department of Energy provided fanding to Ames Laboratory and Iowa State University ta conduct a site
assessment to fully characterize the contamination at the site, An Interim Removal Action (IRA) was proposed by
Ames Laboratory and approved by the department in April 1993. The URA was conducted in 1994. As part of the



a

Addued, LE nega hs bs 3 tw part

Some AAdts bogtle thiminatine luas
Anticipates, 6 histiriceh Betiviliés
Nebated, ty Ursniems bud thartiend
producti precsted Lertd pins Some Stacks
Were petarded, / ot, as pitied, ontemiutiu,
So uti Stitt thre — iw, Cars Sf Sey |

When SLi Chaim 4

an sh Chante @treds. :
the Anes Sab News Monet foam fob
v Gen began Aéug A até al, Lai fy Maclin,
S$ mained thd muy Nish DR Achat frke
ads Recount the hg hayards that
Were Vrsated. Luith the Major Aen ovatians
(inclu diug the Same vr Xovet a4 iy i),
Lud, Ch S eshte, ith. Aacliohctiiie!Ihabnuiks
Aud Cer Un-llotuemsnted, fuleasa, J
Gucstimn Whether, Gre "lworst" Cate elected.
Wins indeed, the Worst Cate.
. usAéc Afoke
he Wm lab wn oct. t3, 460, He Shed the
jhlowing oliming his Apecch. “ Muelear, ;
cholo presents Néu) Aust é pidblines,
Hore We Must Crnscder the. Glew torn x
ugh lim peralicres edi SCAN , lashodesny
Stuck Guelbties Bud 2 host Q Other
Prsbloms dud, Ge QAdelinr the EXfects o Radiation



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
\Iness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

E.1 Name of DOE or AWE Facility: Ames LABORATORY
this petition:

ty rele

vant to
ive

a! tebe G

E.3 List job titles and/or job duties of employees included in the class. In addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be
included in this class:

E.4 — Emplovment Dates relevant to this petition:

Start SASS End {Q6o0
Stat _ End
Start End

E.5 —{s the petition based on one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored or
recorded exposure incidents?: © Yes {{ No

If yes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and a complete description (attach additional pages
as necessary):

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _


Summaxy Minutes Tune 14-16, 2006
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

might have been Boitra . Dr. Behling reviewed results of a 1952
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) survey conducted at the. Ames Laboratory
facility. The report identified serious deficiencies, along with 36
recommendations aimed primarily at reducing air concentration.

CEA. then identified three issues, the first one questioning ‘whether
idered as the prime period for

the 1954-1955 tima frame should be consi
the SEC; the ‘second concerning the class of workers and whether guards -

were included; and the moat important issue, episodic doses that could.
have ‘contributed to an exposure that might have workers eligible for
the exposure period that was not necessarily defined by the 250-day

work aggregate. -

he second criterion involving a potential look at the 250-day period
was the definition under paragraph 93.13 mentioning other events
involving similar high level exposure xesulting from the failure of
radiation protection controls. The 1952 survey clearly pointed to a

failure of those controls.

Thorium 232 calculations due to routine exposures were displayed; they
were taken from the 1952 survey of exposures. Additional discussion
between SC&A and NIOSH was needed to resolve the meaning of the
numbers. The calculations illustrated the potential of one routine
exposure in one day to constitute a significant health risk.

tke

Discussion subsequent to the presentation was lengthy. and technical,
and included offerings from the Board, NIOSH, SCE&A and the petitioners.

Topics included the following.

Discussion Points:

SWhether the basis for SC&A's implication that the SEC class should be
continued was residual contamination itself or the ability to do
dose reconstruction. .

wWhether SC&A acted appropriately in going beyond the scope of what
they had been asked to review. ,

BThe mattex is ‘not whether there was, persistent contamination in some
buildings, but whether NIOSH can put plauaible upper bounds on the
exposures in those buildings. .

SNIOSH's internal dose calculation estimates are much lower than those
presented by SC&A.

wFurther discussion on this matter, and other issues, is needed.

mA request for NIOSH to share their calculations on the .upper bound,

A request for explanation of why the 50-year committed: argan dose is

ai


May 14, 2009

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

have provided care tc for many years and have been. involved in
management of both left and : ~ ances in 1987 and 1997 respectively.

{am aware of the fact the patient was potentially exposed to radiation during
employment in the Ames Laboratory. | have reviewed the literature on radiation

exposure and cancer.

I believe it is more likely than not that her exposure to radiation therapy in the workplace
played a role in the dévelopment of both o! cancers.


D1

D.2

D.3

D4
D5
D6

D.7

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Illness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

a

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010
Page 3 of 7

Labor Organization Information — Complete Section D ONLY if you are a labor organization.

Labor Organization Information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
Name of Petition Representative:

Address of Petition Representative:

Street Apt # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
Telephone Number of Petition Representative: ( ) -
Email Address of Petition Representative:

Period during which labor organization represented employees covered by this petition
(please attach documentation): Start ’ "End

Identity of other labor organizations that may represent or have represented this class of
employees (if known):

\
Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _


v

“a Courd. Only do a, partial oleae Ae-
Condbiwetecn, for /Mé-y J Bhoutd. be 4ub-
nati cz Of. lonpedred Ie tie SEC,
wt have § aww. thite La & WK an ouable,
Hipelitood, that pn rg CEP posure at Gmey
Lp Carbaedle ny er a tuk de thy
Sans,

Di. Meton Aes tribeds dimig Kb bw Cus

q fe btructirn Bree 25 Aa dislegicat
chviti, Noted y thorium, bpor ALiong, ile

physica, phanz ag Naver trtlin Ne ced Ye J ede,
diletene JCA dperatecn) Gud. 418

Wehinobon Liha Lr Ade gn ater

Aung Dr Anes Lab SEC Petitiav lnrhi
Gp Dthrt hud. Stth Atti for My
vag, SCrA Conchudecl, @o Acad ‘7Litag he,
that ie de Aiconttiuctons Would be
; cult, aad fait df f onfermeatec, a ae
Wr nde ha ts What Conotetu ted’ Che yee
progect, Lohethor peta are potntal
Pesci Went beyoud. te Prodluchow
peruod, tb be Vucherted, 0. part It Hie, SEC
pect is Open Leta tions h wale
Cone Bene hg Hid he. (pe
the /954. Lud. dite Maght jue book “Onbithe

Ihe matter Was not Whether thee Wad.
But Contaminstsw, but Whether
Nursh Cin pit plausiste / , Colin kg
on Hse Chposuses. She Me dur Low
Shoutd be that = las ok pou did, tue The.



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
\liness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 07/31/2010

S| Pay

pecial Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B 20f7

Survivor Information — Complete Sec

n B if you are a Survivor or representing a Sui

B.1 Name of Survivor:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
B.2 Social Security Number of Survivor:

B.3 Address of Survivor:

Street Apt # P.O, Box

City State Zip Code
B.4 Telephone Number of Survivor: ) -

B.5 Email Address of Survivor:

B.6 _—- Relationship to Employee: Q Spouse Q Son/Daughter Q Parent
Q Grandparent Q Grandchild

Employee Information — Complete Section C UNLESS you are a labor organization.
C.1_ Name of Emplovee:

First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.2 Former Name of Employee (e.g., maiden name/legal name change/other):

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
C.3 Social Security Number of Employee: = ___

C.4.— Addrace of Fmonlovee (if livina):

Siennt Ant # P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
C.5 Telephone Number of Employes __
C.6 Email Address of Employee:

C.7 Employment Information Related to Petition:
C.7a Employee Number (if known):

C.7b Dates of Employment: Start ARS} End REL
C.7c Employer Name: Ames LABoCATORY ;
C.7d Work Site Location: MoS thy SPEDDING BLDG. AMES LA

C.7e Supervisor's Name:

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner: _



Crnaidence. What wf boas epysed
bts Common Seute

dugg hese yo bthe’ Hur “ey. ccd Cade

. me E Cancers muy j. Sams nds Chaypoed

boast
ok Saye lp oh Poe. Ma.

Lis Mare. Chav hepater a
Cinter, 44, jee Fenn 49 Hie 1

J Compousated,
Opty tafe be Also, hy toto loonbed “

PS: dhe Ames tab offic hietias monk SA Safety

vee ¢ Afdutaace Aad this Shatimot
adeatioo

30/08. ide Limes
thee if Be CaM Aided Conder vetine
ump tion that 2 Ls We dade Lonel

y Lik polure,.

a, _CHERRYL BENNING
‘a: Commission Number 731668
¥ : mnmizelan
far November 22.2010, B®



Summaxy Minutes June 14-16, 2006
Nrosu/cu¢ Advisory Board on Radiation end Worker Health

numerous job titles and gite buildings, was provided. He detailed
NIOSH’s search for data within the NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System
(NOCTS), noting the almost complete lack of monitoring data available
therein. He described the Ames Laboratory in terms of ‘its structure
and its radiological activities, notably thorium operations. The
physical plant, was never ‘intended to house a production scale operation
and its ventilation was inadequate. .

pr. Neton detailed the information NIOSH obtaimed from each of its
sources, including several databases, interviews, with Ames staff
members, the Ames Laboratory web site, and documentation provided by
petitioners. He provided a breakdown o£ the dosimetry data into
external and internal. As a whole, the dosimetry data is sparse.
Monitoring and source term information is spotty. Under the first
prong of the: two-prong test established by EROICPA, NIOSH came to the
determination that the available ‘monitoring xecords’ ‘and process
deseriptions are insufficient to complete dose reconstructions with

sufficient accuracy.

Regarding the sécond prong of that test, health endangerment, NIOSH's
study of the evidence ‘indicates that workers may have received episodic
internal/external exposures from working with thorium, plutonium. and
thoron; however, those exposures do not meet the litmus test of an
exposure equivalent to one that would result from a criticality
accident, so the default 250-day requirement is used. Based’ on NIOSHs
analysis, the revised proposed class definition added the 250 day
requirement and eliminated job titles per sa, substituting more
encompassing wording. Dr. Neton explained why the proposed definition
end date was one year earlier than that of the petitioner's proposed
That decision was based on cessation of operations in 1954

definition.
for both uranium and thorium activities and NIOSH's ability to establish
plausible upper bounds for exposures in 1955, In summary, he

delineated what NIOSH can and cannot do regarding dose reconstructions

for internal, external, neutron and medical exposures.

ee

Discusgion Points:

wWhy the 250-day limit was used in the instance of episodic exposures.
wThe potential for Ames workers still employed in 1955 to constitute a

different class. ;
mThe Board need to devise a way to handle sitvations in facilities with
essentially no monitoring programs during relevant time periods.

eee



summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

listed as a rate. .
#A request for dates for which data is avallable. :
Bclarification that guards, firemen and secretaries will be included in
the -NIOSH proposed SEC class definition. .
wConsideration of the Ames storage facilities for thorium and uranium.

the

pr. Meliua read into the record their

As working group Chair,
which ia received as a motion requiring no

recommendation to the Board,
second:

The Board recommenda that the following letter be transmitted to the
Seaxetary of Health and Human Services within 21 days. Should the
Chair become aware of any issue that in his judgment would
preglude the transmittal of thie letter within that tima period,
the Board raquests that he promptly informs the Board: of the delay
and the reaeons for thia delay, and that he immediately works with
NIOSH to schedule an emergency meating of the Board to discuss

this issue.

The Advisory Hoard on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) has
evaluated tha SEC petition 00038 coricerning workers at the Ames
Laboratory under the statutory requirements established by EEOICPA
and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 93.13. The Board
respectfully recommends a Special Exposure Cohort be accorded to
all Department of Energy employees or ita contractor or
- gubeontractor employees who were monitored or should have been
monitozed while working at Ames Laboratory in one or more of the
following facilities/locations: Chemistry Annex 1 (also known ag
the “old women’a gymasium® and “little Ankeny”), Chamiatry Annex 2,
Chemistry Building (also known as “Gilman Hall’), Research Building
er the Matallurgical Building (also known as “Harley Wilhelm Hall”)
for a number of work days aggregating at least 250° work days
during the period from January 1, 1942 through December 31°,
1954, or im combination with the work days within the parameters
astablished for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC.

These workers were employed during the early years of the nuclear
weapons production. There are very little monitoring data
available for the Ames Laboratory during the years in question.
NIOSH concluded that the available monitoring ‘and source term
information igs not sufficient to document or estimate the
potential maximum radiation exposures for workers at the Ames
Laboratory under plausible circumstances during the time period in
question. The Board concurs with this conclusion.

12